I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#5,242
Hi,

janneman said:


You're mixing things up Frank.The difference between live and reproduced music is hugely more than time and space. Even if you get time and space perfectly reproduced, it's still a far cry from live.

jd
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Jan.
Sorry about the double comment BTW. It must be me getting bored, not you being boring. 😉

So, what do you have in mind?

I'd rule out room acoustics for the simple reason that I find a live session of a piano in the same room versus a recorded version still does not sound the same no matter how good the speakers and amps are. Or cables for that matter.

Where does it go wrong in your opinion?

Cheers, 😉
 
#5,243
jlsem said:

. . . . . By the way, I was mistaken: The AC in the umbilical is only 6.3 volts. It's been ten years after all. A decade.
John
Click to expand...

Actually you were correct the first time.

All the (original) ones I have seen have the mains going into the preamp to a switch on the back of a 500k Vol/Bal Pot! From there two umbilicals, one for each amp, carried the mains, preamp output, and Fil and HT to power the preamp. Each cable split at the amp end into two plugs one for the mains input and a 6 pin Howard and Jones plug for everything else.
What is more the mains went to the same bank of input select push buttons so you could turn one amp off. Mono? And yet it worked even with the sensitive speakers of the day. Very good cable was used, but you are correct you couldn't get away with it now days.

The preamp although a work of art did not sound good, but the amps do, 15w RMS, 10Hz to 20kHz, 0.1% THD.
 
#5,244
Hi,

SY said:


You asked what a system designed by "science is everything" guys would sound like. Since you're a bit distant from Texas, I thought I'd mention some that you probably HAVE heard.
Click to expand...


Sure, I'm familiar with most of it but then I've seen Jurassic Park too.

What I had in mind was, what would a "scientist' consider to be a good enough cable for audio purposes?
One that would be considered flawless from all known scientific points of view.

IOW, decribe to me what technical parameters per running meter that ideal cable should ascribe to, to be accepted as a perfect conductor for the task at hand.

I hope I didn't open yet another can of worms........

Cheers, :angel:
 
#5,246
Hi,

fredex said:
If we are to trust our ears, what about brianco's experience with stereo that was actually mono, I instantly knew what he was talking about as I have had many similar experiences. As he says, "the brain is weird" and you can't always trust it to correctly decode what the ear gives it.

I am prepared to believe that some can hear things that others can't because their hearing is better, or trained. But on cables (correct me if I am wrong) there is no consensus on what a particular cable does to the sound. If a cable can influence soundstage, some will make it better and others worse, where is the subjectivist's bible on this?

If there isn't any consensus it must be the brain not the cable.
Click to expand...


IIRC it was about two different cables in a single stereo system and that's pretty easy to explain.
Image will shift to the path of least resistance. (LCR remember)

We often tend to prefer what's louder to our ears. It isn't necessarily better.

Soundstage width can similarly be influenced by contact resistance being different from one channel to another. Old hat and common sense really.

Is Tweak still around?

Too bad there's so little vinyl around. Analogue systems with lowish output MCs could be so darn revealing of subtle differences.......

Cheers, 😉
 
#5,247
Hi,

fredex said:
I have Quad IIs and yes it is interesting how many older tube amps that are highly prized by discerning audiophiles were all built prior to the subjectivist era.

With only simple measurements to guide them how could those engineers make an amp capable of transporting an audiophile to the very gates (Quads take you straight inside) of audio heaven? 😉
Click to expand...


WOW.
A silly little amp with so many shortcommings it couldn't even drive it's intended companion, the Quad ESls properly?

You must be kidding me.

Cheers, 😉
 
#5,248
Hi,

janneman said:


Agreed, I am well aware of these effects. Simlarly, in group tests where you tell one group that they have been selected because of their intelligence, they perform better than when they are not told this. Such is the power of suggestion. Ask any football coach.

The way I see it, it only reinforces the need for tests that are controlled as best as possible. An ABX test isn't perfect, but runs rings around a casual, uncontrolled 'test'.

jd
Click to expand...


You're doing it again, Jan.
Do you actually realise how condescending that comes across?

The power of suggestion in this case is: I'm superior, you are just gullible sheep. Amen.

What you suggest is so transparent it's an insult to human intelligence.

Cheers, 😉
 
#5,249
analog_sa said:


True. As long as one doesn't feed them music they don't like which is almost anything with dynamics. Still, it's pretty hard to design an amp using trioded KT66s and tube rectification which doesn't sound good. Do such amps exist?
Click to expand...

For dynamics sensitive speakers (horns), so you don't stress the amp. This is not a Williamson, the KT66s are run as tetrodes not triodes. If you connect them as triodes (I tried) you get hum as the HT is poorly filtered to the op stage, the choke only filters the HT for the screens, phase splitter and preamp.

I wouldn't put this design down, it is rather clever and works well.

Some prefer amps with worse specs.
 
#5,251
Hi,

SY said:


Doesn't do too badly now, either. The ESL57 is still considered a reference standard, and a pair of immaculate Quad IIs would pay my mortgage for a while.
Click to expand...

You really must be kidding.
A Quad ESL is soo limited in bandwidth and powerhandling it's pretty useless.
A pair of Quad II are just a collectors' item. They're only any good if I can mod them and then some.

No wonder why you guys are stumbling over cables. You lost touch with reality many years ago.

Scientia, quo vadis?

Cheers, :smash:
 
#5,253
Hi,

Key said:


I did not know that but I was thinking more of the ESLs. Still that to me shows that he understood the practical theory so well that he knew the amp would work well.



Isn't this theoretically true? To me this seems like an engineer who knows his role.

Him and his company understood (still do?) the 1:1 relationship between the Mixing and/or Recording engineer and the listener. The goal is not to make the soundstage bigger, brighter, and extended. Not to perform some magic on the sound because there is no such thing.
Click to expand...


Show me the documents before I'm flying off the handle.

You folk can be so stupid sometimes.

Cheers, 😉
 
#5,256
fdegrove said:
Hi, ...Old hat and common sense really

......You must be kidding me.

.....What you suggest is so transparent it's an insult to human intelligence.

......You really must be kidding.

.....No wonder why you guys are stumbling over cables. You lost touch with reality many years ago.
Click to expand...

I love it I love it, the last most of all. 😀
 
#5,257
Hi,

SY said:
OK, so Peter Walker was a hack. Linkwitz is a hack. The stuff stinks. They don't have your exquisite sensitivity. You don't even have to hear a well-set-up system, you already know, using Audiophile Psychic Projection, that it will be awful. And this despite you claiming to be immune to bias and preconception.

Res ipsa loquitur.
Click to expand...


Does that mean you admit to have limited sensory capabilities or that you just want to come back to Belgium to taste one of my brews?

And yes Peter Walker was fine way back....In like fifty two years ago. Time to move on.

Adios pendajos, 😉
 
#5,258
Hi,

SY said:
OK, so Peter Walker was a hack. Linkwitz is a hack. The stuff stinks. They don't have your exquisite sensitivity. You don't even have to hear a well-set-up system, you already know, using Audiophile Psychic Projection, that it will be awful. And this despite you claiming to be immune to bias and preconception.

Res ipsa loquitur.
Click to expand...


Does that mean you admit to have limited sensory capabilities or that you just want to come back to Belgium to taste one of my brews?
You could see this as a pataphor or as a genuine invitation.

And yes Peter Walker was fine way back....In like fifty two years ago. Time to move on.

Adios pendajos, 😉
 
#5,260
Hi,

Key said:


I did not know that but I was thinking more of the ESLs. Still that to me shows that he understood the practical theory so well that he knew the amp would work well.



Isn't this theoretically true? To me this seems like an engineer who knows his role.

Him and his company understood (still do?) the 1:1 relationship between the Mixing and/or Recording engineer and the listener. The goal is not to make the soundstage bigger, brighter, and extended. Not to perform some magic on the sound because there is no such thing.
Click to expand...


This whole idea is just false. Historically and factually.

Cheers, 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom